Personality and Social Psychology Review最新文献

{"title":"Decoding the Dynamics of Cultural Change: A Cultural Evolution Approach to the Psychology of Acculturation.","authors":"Jonas R Kunst, Alex Mesoudi","doi":"10.1177/10888683241258406","DOIUrl":"10.1177/10888683241258406","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Although acculturation psychology is extensively studied in the social sciences, research progress has slowed due to overused methodologies and theories and emerging challenges to core conceptual tenets. Here, we seek to stimulate scientific inquiry into acculturation by integrating underutilized cultural evolutionary perspectives. We propose that cultural evolutionary mechanisms, such as (anti)conformity, prestige bias, payoff bias, and vertical transmission are instrumental in understanding when, why, and how minority- and majority-group members acculturate. The direction and potency of these mechanisms are proposed to be modulated by a combination of contextual and individual factors, resulting in acculturation strategies that at the population level form \"cultural evolutionary equilibria.\" These equilibria in turn have consequences for the long-term, population-level dynamics of cultural evolution. We outline how our integration of perspectives can allow researchers to model the dynamics of large-scale cultural change, increasing our understanding of the complex challenges faced by today's diverse societies.Public AbstractAcculturation describes the cultural and psychological changes resulting from intercultural contact. Here, we use concepts from \"cultural evolution\" to better understand the processes of acculturation. Cultural evolution researchers view cultural change as an evolutionary process, allowing them to borrow tools and methods from biology. Cultural evolutionary mechanisms such as conformity (copying the numerical majority), anti-conformity (copying the numerical minority), prestige bias (copying famous individuals), payoff bias (copying successful people), and vertical cultural transmission (copying your parents) can cause people to adopt elements from other cultures and/or conserve their cultural heritage. We explore how these transmission mechanisms might create distinct acculturation strategies, shaping cultural change and diversity over the long-term. This theoretical integration can pave the way for a more sophisticated understanding of the pervasive cultural shifts occurring in many ethnically diverse societies, notably by identifying conditions that empower minority-group members, often marginalized, to significantly influence the majority group and society.</p>","PeriodicalId":48386,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"111-144"},"PeriodicalIF":7.7,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11960022/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141761776","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Case for Heterogeneity in Metacognitive Appraisals of Biased Beliefs.","authors":"Corey Cusimano","doi":"10.1177/10888683241251520","DOIUrl":"10.1177/10888683241251520","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Academic AbstractProminent theories of belief and metacognition make different predictions about how people evaluate their biased beliefs. These predictions reflect different assumptions about (a) people's conscious belief regulation goals and (b) the mechanisms and constraints underlying belief change. I argue that people exhibit heterogeneity in how they evaluate their biased beliefs. Sometimes people are blind to their biases, sometimes people acknowledge and condone them, and sometimes people resent them. The observation that people adopt a variety of \"metacognitive positions\" toward their beliefs provides insight into people's belief regulation goals as well as insight into way that belief formation is free and constrained. The way that people relate to their beliefs illuminates why they hold those beliefs. Identifying how someone thinks about their belief is useful for changing their mind.Public AbstractThe same belief can be alternatively thought of as rational, careful, unfortunate, or an act of faith. These beliefs about one's beliefs are called \"metacognitive positions.\" I review evidence that people hold at least four different metacognitive positions. For each position, I discuss what kinds of cognitive processes generated belief and what role people's values and preferences played in belief formation. We can learn a lot about someone's belief based on how they relate to that belief. Learning how someone relates to their belief is useful for identifying the best ways to try to change their mind.</p>","PeriodicalId":48386,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"188-212"},"PeriodicalIF":7.7,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141285084","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"On (Im)Patience: A New Approach to an Old Virtue.","authors":"Kate Sweeny","doi":"10.1177/10888683241263874","DOIUrl":"10.1177/10888683241263874","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Academic AbstractPatience has been of great interest to religious scholars, philosophers, and psychological scientists. Their efforts have produced numerous insights but no cohesive theoretical approach to understanding the broad set of experiences people label as patience. I propose a novel view of patience, one that departs from but ties together existing approaches. Grounded in theories of emotion and emotion regulation, I propose impatience as a discrete emotion triggered by an objectionable delay of some sort, and patience (as a state or process rather than a virtue) as a form of emotion regulation that targets the subjective experience and outward expression of impatience. I propose a number of predictors and consequences of patience and impatience and provide initial evidence for many of the theory's tenets. This theoretical approach, the <i>process model of patience</i>, reveals coherence across varied fields and methodologies and generates novel, testable, and timely questions for future patience scholars.Public Abstract\"Patience is a virtue\" is a familiar exhortation, and patience has been of great interest to religious scholars, philosophers, and psychological scientists. Their efforts have produced numerous insights but no cohesive theoretical approach to understanding the broad set of experiences people label as patience. This paper proposes an entirely novel view of patience, one that departs from but ties together existing approaches. I propose that impatience is an emotion, triggered by a frustrating delay of some sort, and patience captures the various ways people try to deal with their experience of impatience. I also propose that various aspects of the situation and the person combine to determine the intensity of impatience and the effectiveness of patience. Finally, I discuss the implications of a theoretical model, the <i>process model of patience</i>, for both scientific inquiry and issues of social justice, which are often fueled by appropriate experiences of impatience.</p>","PeriodicalId":48386,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"145-158"},"PeriodicalIF":7.7,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141789533","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"How and Why People Synchronize: An Integrated Perspective.","authors":"Elizabeth B daSilva, Adrienne Wood","doi":"10.1177/10888683241252036","DOIUrl":"10.1177/10888683241252036","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Academic AbstractInterpersonal synchrony, the alignment of behavior and/or physiology during interactions, is a pervasive phenomenon observed in diverse social contexts. Here we synthesize across contexts and behaviors to classify the different forms and functions of synchrony. We provide a concise framework for classifying the manifold forms of synchrony along six dimensions: periodicity, discreteness, spatial similarity, directionality, leader-follower dynamics, and observability. We also distill the various proposed functions of interpersonal synchrony into four interconnected functions: reducing complexity and improving understanding, accomplishing joint tasks, strengthening social connection, and influencing partners' behavior. These functions derive from first principles, emerge from each other, and are accomplished by some forms of synchrony more than others. Effective synchrony flexibly adapts to social goals and more synchrony is not always better. Our synthesis offers a shared framework and language for the field, allowing for better cross-context and cross-behavior comparisons, generating new hypotheses, and highlighting future research directions.</p>","PeriodicalId":48386,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"159-187"},"PeriodicalIF":7.7,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141071920","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Beyond Trolleyology: The CNI Model of Moral-Dilemma Responses.","authors":"Bertram Gawronski, Nyx L Ng","doi":"10.1177/10888683241234114","DOIUrl":"10.1177/10888683241234114","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Public abstract: </strong>How do people make judgments about actions that violate moral norms yet maximize the greater good (e.g., sacrificing the well-being of a small number of people for the well-being of a larger number of people)? Research on this question has been criticized for relying on highly artificial scenarios and for conflating multiple distinct factors underlying responses in moral dilemmas. The current article reviews research that used a computational modeling approach to disentangle the roles of multiple distinct factors in responses to plausible moral dilemmas based on real-world events. By disentangling sensitivity to consequences, sensitivity to moral norms, and general preference for inaction versus action in responses to realistic dilemmas, the reviewed work provides a more nuanced understanding of how people make judgments about the right course of action in moral dilemmas.</p>","PeriodicalId":48386,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"32-80"},"PeriodicalIF":7.7,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11734360/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140111896","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"When People Do Allyship: A Typology of Allyship Action.","authors":"Lucy De Souza, Toni Schmader","doi":"10.1177/10888683241232732","DOIUrl":"10.1177/10888683241232732","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Academic abstract: </strong>Despite increased popular and academic interest, there is conceptual ambiguity about what allyship is and the forms it takes. Viewing allyship as a practice, we introduce the <i>typology of allyship action</i> which organizes the diversity of ways that advantaged individuals seek to support those who are disadvantaged. We characterize <i>allyship actions</i> as reactive (addressing bias when it occurs) and proactive (fostering positive outcomes such as feelings of inclusion, respect, and capacity), both of which can vary in level of analysis (i.e., targeting oneself, one or a few other individuals, or institutions). We use this framework to profile six productive yet largely independent bodies of social psychological literature on social action and directly compare relative benefits and constraints of different actions. We suggest several future directions for empirical research, using the typology of allyship to understand when, where, and how different forms of allyship might succeed.</p><p><strong>Public abstract: </strong>Despite increased popular and academic interest in the word, people differ in what they believe allyship is and the forms it takes. Viewing allyship as a practice, we introduce a new way (the <i>typology of allyship action</i>) to describe how advantaged individuals seek to support those who are disadvantaged. We characterize <i>allyship actions</i> as reactive (addressing bias when it occurs) and proactive (increasing positive outcomes such as feelings of inclusion, respect, and capacity), both of which can vary in level (i.e., targeting oneself, one or a few other individuals, or institutions). We use this framework to profile six large yet mostly separate areas of social psychological research on social action and directly compare the relative benefits and limitations of different actions. We suggest several future directions for how the typology of allyship action can help us understand when, where, and how different forms of allyship might succeed.</p>","PeriodicalId":48386,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"3-31"},"PeriodicalIF":7.7,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11734359/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140066073","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"When Social Hierarchy, Power, and Collective Autonomy Motivate Social Movement and Counter-Movement Mobilization Among Disadvantaged and Advantaged Groups","authors":"Adrian Rivera-Rodriguez, Evelyn Mercado, Linda R. Tropp, Nilanjana Dasgupta","doi":"10.1177/10888683241305662","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683241305662","url":null,"abstract":"What happens when disadvantaged group members try to gain power in an attempt to protect their collective autonomy? The present integrative review outlines dynamic social processes and conditions under which efforts to restrict a group’s collective autonomy motivate social movement mobilization among disadvantaged groups to challenge social hierarchies that limit their power. This, in turn, threatens advantaged groups’ perceptions of their access to power and, by extension, their sense of collective autonomy, motivating them to reaffirm the existing social hierarchy by mobilizing counter-movements. We propose a theoretical model, called the Movement Mobilization Model of Collective Autonomy, to articulate these dynamic processes by integrating sociological, psychological, and organizational science literatures. The model specifies the conditions under which social movements and counter-movements are activated, psychological processes that drive action, how they play off each other, and offer directions for future research.Public AbstractWhat happens when disadvantaged groups feel that their freedom to define and practice their collective identity (i.e., collective autonomy) is restricted? The present theoretical review outlines the conditions under which social inequality activates the feelings of collective autonomy restriction among disadvantaged group members and motivates the mobilization of social movements seeking social equality. As these social movements gain traction, advantaged group members may feel that their privileged position and collective autonomy are threatened. These feelings of threat and collective autonomy restriction among advantaged groups in turn motivate them to mobilize counter-movements that seek to protect social hierarchy and their privileged position within it. The process outlined in this case is relevant to individuals from both marginalized and privileged backgrounds, as it illustrates the different ways in which real-world power structures shape the way they experience and navigate social movements and counter-movements as they unfold in real time.","PeriodicalId":48386,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","volume":"204 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.8,"publicationDate":"2025-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142940164","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Beyond Good or Bad: The Four Evaluative Quadrants of Relationships","authors":"Francesca Righetti, Mirna Đurić, Iris Schneider","doi":"10.1177/10888683241302247","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683241302247","url":null,"abstract":"Academic AbstractTraditionally, theoretical and empirical accounts have considered relationship evaluations along one single dimension ranging from positive to negative. However, in this theoretical work, we stress the importance of using a bi-dimensional conceptualization of relationship evaluations in which positive and negative dimensions can vary independently. In doing so, we describe the four evaluative quadrants experienced in relationships and outline their unique interpersonal processes and outcomes, both from the perspective of the person experiencing them (i.e., actor effects) and from the perspective of the recipient of such evaluations (i.e., partner effects) and considering both explicit (i.e., deliberative) and implicit (i.e., automatic) processes. We also provide a framework that predicts how relationship properties are likely to influence relationships evaluations, and we introduce the Trajectories of Relationship Evaluation Model (TREM) that describes changes in evaluations over time and the factors that influence such changes.Public AbstractThe way we evaluate other people has important implications for how we relate to others and for our psychological and physical health. However, previous research has mostly focused on positive or negative evaluations in relationships. But there are two other types of evaluations that people commonly experience in relationships: ambivalence and indifference. In this work, we argue that it is important to study all four different evaluative types in relationships (i.e., mostly positive, mostly negative, ambivalence, and indifference) because they each uniquely predict certain relationship dynamics and processes. We discuss the consequences of these different types of evaluations for the person who holds the evaluation and for the person who is the target of such evaluation, and we discuss how these evaluations affect both deliberative and automatic processes. Finally, we propose a model (TREM) of how relationship evaluations evolve over time and of the factors that influence the changes in evaluations.","PeriodicalId":48386,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","volume":"65 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.8,"publicationDate":"2024-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142901606","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Prioritization of Prospection.","authors":"Eugene M Caruso, Sam J Maglio, Leaf Van Boven","doi":"10.1177/10888683241292849","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683241292849","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Academic abstract: </strong>Humans frequently engage in mental time travel, reflecting on the past and anticipating the future. Although these processes may seem similar, research documents systematic differences between retrospection and prospection. We propose a conceptual framework to organize and explain these differences based on three axiomatic temporal asymmetries: The past occurs before the future; the past is more certain than the future; and the past is less controllable than the future. People's experience with these axiomatic differences is internalized and overgeneralized to shape mental representations of the past and future. Our review shows that people generally prioritize prospection over retrospection, attending more to the future than the past and reacting more intensely to future events than to past events. We consider potential moderators of and constraints on the generality of prioritizing prospection. We explore the implications of these temporal asymmetries, emphasizing their theoretical and practical significance.</p><p><strong>Public abstract: </strong>While daily life centers on the present, people often reflect on the past and anticipate the future. But which direction of mental time travel-backward or forward-has more influence? We identify three key differences that shape how people engage with the past and future: time flows from past to future, the future is more uncertain, and people have more control over the future. These differences affect the frequency, intensity, and nature of thoughts and feelings, leading to predictable biases in how we mentally represent and emotionally engage with events over time. Because focusing on the future often provides greater benefits, people tend to prioritize prospection over retrospection in everyday life.</p>","PeriodicalId":48386,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"10888683241292849"},"PeriodicalIF":7.7,"publicationDate":"2024-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142755816","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Where Is Capitalism? Unmasking Its Hidden Role in Psychology.","authors":"Karim Bettache","doi":"10.1177/10888683241287570","DOIUrl":"10.1177/10888683241287570","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Public abstract: </strong>Our thoughts, behaviors, and well-being are deeply influenced by the economic system we live in-capitalism. While psychologists have explored capitalist ideologies like neoliberalism, they often overlook capitalism's core foundations driving inequality. This work argues that capitalism, rooted in Western colonial history, generates powerful cultural narratives prioritizing profit, competition, and private ownership. These capitalist principles manifest as pervasive societal mindsets obsessed with personal gain, viewing life as a zero-sum rivalry, and deriving self-worth from possessions. Collectively, they breed an individualistic syndrome of selfish striving at the expense of community. By understanding how these capitalist cultural forces psychologically shape us, maintaining oppressive societal hierarchies, we can reimagine economic systems that truly uplift the human spirit across all peoples and the planet we share. Unveiling capitalism's influence is crucial to recover from its alienating effects and envision liberating alternatives.</p>","PeriodicalId":48386,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"10888683241287570"},"PeriodicalIF":7.7,"publicationDate":"2024-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142644997","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}